Section 125, the Code of Criminal Procedure, aims to prevent destitution by ensuring financial support for a spouse, enabling a standard of living commensurate with their partner's status. Revisional courts will not interfere with maintenance awards absent clear jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity.

2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State.

3. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

4. The present criminal revision has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 02 of 2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance at the rate of ₹6,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of respondent no.2-wife.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist and respondent no.2 are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 26.05.2015 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies; that, due to matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately; that, thereafter, respondent no.2 instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.

6. He would further submit that the Family Court has awarded maintenance at the rate of ₹6,000/- per month without properly appreciating the material available on record. It is further submitted that the revisionist is employed as a Senior Operator in a private company and is earning only about ₹16,615/- per month; that, there is no child born out of the wedlock and, therefore, the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive and liable to be reduced.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and has no independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself; that, a wife is entitled to live with dignity and enjoy a standard of living commensurate with that of her husband; that, the learned Family Court, after considering the income and financial status of the revisionist, has rightly awarded maintenance at the rate of ₹6,000/- per month and the impugned order does not call for any interference.

8. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the marital relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The record further reveals that efforts for reconciliation and amicable settlement were undertaken, but the same did not yield any positive result. The Family Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record, assessed the income of the revisionist and awarded maintenance at the rate of ₹6,000/- per month in favour of respondent no.2-wife.

9. It is well settled that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and vagrancy and to provide financial support to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. A legally wedded wife is entitled to maintenance so as to enable her to live with dignity and in a manner commensurate with the status and standard of living of her husband. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court cannot be said to be arbitrary, excessive or unreasonable considering the income of the revisionist and the circumstances of the case.

10. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error, illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

11. Accordingly, the criminal revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.